Homeopathy adheres to a very different conception of
man and disease from orthodox medicine and it is only the dismal
ignorance of its vocal critics that is displayed, as usual, in this
discussion. It is still rooted in observation, experiment and empirical
studies, verification and a body of theory deriving solely from that.
Who is to say that a different way of seeing makes it any less
scientific? Moreover, on what possible basis, other than pure prejudice?

The Problem of Classifying
Diseases

Homeopathy is in fact more similar to ancient
medicine in the root basis of its view of ‘the sick man’ than is the
rampant and simplistic reductionism of modern medicine – all that
glitters is not gold. When Rousseau rather profoundly said, "there
are no diseases, only sick people," [1; 78] he might well have
been speaking with a homeopathic voice, and Louise McLean [2] is quite
right to state that each person is a unique case. The problem is that
modern clinicians have been taught virtually no philosophy and precious
little medical history. Therefore, such matters are terra incognita to
them all. Homeopathy is patient-centred and holistic; it does not clump
patients together on the arbitrary basis of a humanly created disease
classification scheme, that is not God-given and which only generates
predictably formulaic treatments for the masses, in which the individual
has been entirely swallowed into an amorphous mass.

By overlooking "that the disease
classification is man-made…they assume…that disease entities somehow
have an independent existence," [1; 82] which of course they do
not. They are human constructs with no more reality than pipe dreams.
The "disease classification is still largely a mixture of
disease entities defined in anatomical, physiological and
microbiological terms," [1; 77] which is indeed "a
man-made classification of individual patients." [1; 77] Even "the
distinction between health and disease…requires more or less arbitrary
quantitative criteria," [1; 52] because "doctors always
identify normality with statistical normality." [1; 49] Yet, "it
is unsatisfactory to equate health with statistical normality."
[1; 49] True and natural disease "classifications are not
arbitrary but must be moulded on reality as it is." [1; 88]
Maybe one day this will happen.

Such treatments are also blatantly driven by a
commercial pharmaceutical ‘industry’ that has converted the natural
products of the earth into saleable for-profit drugs that precludes the
neutrality of all so-called medical research, which is thus
fundamentally biased and which seeks to see CAM discredited at any cost.
Every study it funds pronounces the same mantra of denunciation. The
patient is also excluded legally from self-treatment using natural
drugs. How can such a therapy be remotely any more scientific than
homeopathy? It is not even ‘objective’ by any decent standard and
until science becomes separated from commercial interest, how can you
believe a word it preaches?

Just because homeopathy does not share the same view
of life and disease as allopathy, does not of itself render it
unscientific; just because it does not accept mass treatments, the
concocted statistical norms of health and the arbitrary classification
of certain symptom groups as being a ‘disease,’ does not make it
unscientific. Indeed, it could be said, that homeopathy is more
scientific, because it is rooted in experiment and observation and its
body of theory is entirely derived therefrom. On the basis that "the
scientific process starts with observation," [1; 20-21] it does
indeed regard and treat each person as a unique case and not yet another
example of some abstract ‘type;’ such is a valid therapy. If you
wish to invalidate it on philosophical grounds, then this is not the way
to do it.

Orthodox doctors unwittingly believe that "clinical
problems must be solved by means of the law of large numbers…research
on large numbers of patients in order to provide the numerical data…which
clinicians need to make their predictions at the bedside," [1;
45] because they are tacitly taught to believe "the larger the
number of observations, the closer the approximation," [1; 35]
to medical truth. Homeopathy entirely and justifiably rejects this view
of the organism outright.

Doctors are also "indoctrinated by the idea
that a disease is a mechanical fault of the body and that everything is
explained when this fault has been diagnosed." [1; 4] That is
merely one option, one way of viewing disease. It is a reductionistic
view, with a "tacit knowledge," [1; 7] of science, and
largely unquestioned elements of the modern medical paradigm. Therapies
like homeopathy and acupuncture seriously dispute such a view and point
to clinical successes through entirely different routes, while adhering
to other paradigms. Such therapies clearly "undermine the
simplistic view that diseases are easily definable entities which from
time to time ‘attack’ people." [1; xi] This also reveals "the
concept of disease merely as biological dysfunction as quite
inadequate," [1; x] for, patently, "what one regards as
‘disease’ or ‘treatment’ depends on one’s view of the nature
of man;" [1; xi] and all this shows that modern medicine "is
currently practised without questioning the basic assumptions upon which
that practice is based." [1; viii]

Hahnemann’s Impeccable
Scientific Reputation

Hahnemann
had one of the finest reputations as a scientist in Germany even before
he discovered the homeopathic system, being very highly regarded as a
man of great intelligence and undisputed scientific credentials. For
example, he "proved himself an excellent surgeon, and was far in
advance of his contemporaries." [3; 64] His first books and
articles were "written in such a thoroughly practical manner,"
[3; 64] and were described by a prominent professor as "profound
and clear." [3; 64] Others lauded "a very good book by
Samuel Hahnemann," [3; 65] "written with an unusual
degree of knowledge, reflection and original thought." [3; 65]
He was described as "a man of intelligence and learning [who
writes] with an aphoristic brevity…of great use for academical
lectures." [3; 65] In his extensive translation work, his
erudite "comments are generally very learned, and …enhanced
the value of the work by his numerous corrections of the author’s
errors." [3; 65]

Hahnemann "succeeded in achieving many
splendid cures by his simple method of treatment…[gaining the]
reputation of a careful and successful practitioner…Hahnemann has made
himself a name in Germany as a capable physician," [3; 75] to
whom "we are indebted for many contributions to the perfection
of our science." [3; 75] He is described as "one of the
most distinguished physicians of Germany…a physician of matured
experience and reflection." [3; 75] In 1791, he was elected as
a member of the Leipzig Economic Society, "the Electoral Academy
of Mainz, and later of the Physical and Medical Society of Erlangen."
[3; 75]

Erlanger University

He was very clearly a respected chemist and physician
and there is certainly no evidence that he was a quack, a charlatan, a
crook or a knave, as the enemies of homeopathy have repeatedly claimed.
It would be downright absurd, not to say peevish, to suppose that he
attained such honours in life and attracted such generous praise from
his medical and scientific brethren accidentally or undeservedly. As
usual, these enemies have never even studied the subject they
pontificate about with such relish, have never tried homeopathic
medicines, "content themselves with armchair reasoning,"
[1; 33] and denounce homeopathy solely from a pulpit built on blind
prejudice, deep ignorance, arrogant disregard and a hatred founded in
undisclosed agendas: usually some amalgam of commercial interest and
zealous belief in that especially repulsive religion called ‘scientific
fundamentalism.’

Is Homeopathy Anti-Scientific?

However, it is wrong to accuse all CAM supporters of being
anti-science, but there is an element of truth in it. The sentiment goes
back a long way, and needs to be understood rather than condemned on
reflex as a retrograde step. There have always been those who hated
science, such as Blake and Wordsworth who hated Newton and Descartes, or
at least what they seemed to stand for. Then there have been those like
Ruskin and William Morris, who were more opposed to commercialism, mass
production and the subordination of art and craft to crass mass markets,
"the commercialisation of art, the domination of the bourgeois
consumer, the conception of the artist as a purveyor for a mass
market." [5; 198] Such was akin to "prostituting their
art to the taste of the masses [and] writing for money or fame." [5;
198] They probably hated science also.

In the 1960s and 70s, another anti-science sentiment
burst forth, largely in reaction against the power of ‘the expert’
and the unquestioning adoration in society, a rampant sycophancy, for
established figures, scientists, etc. Rebellious youth of that period
tended to despise ‘authority figures’ of all kinds, including
doctors, the clergy and the police. The backlash of all this was teddy
boys, beatniks, mods and rockers and, in due course, the hippy movement,
back to nature movements, the green movement, environmentalism, clean
energy, living in tee-pees, organic farming, compost gardening and an
interest in Druidism, meditation and alternative medicine. Such a
movement was, once again, a "denunciation of the brutal
levelling processes of industrialism…the regimentation, degradation
and dehumanisation of men," [5; 198] that comprised a bland
uniformity and anonymity. It somehow proposed that we are all the same
and that the material facts of our lives should always be allowed to
ride roughshod over the inner, the spiritual aspects of our
individuality and uniqueness. The response was decisive and emphatic.

Clearly, such a view is much closer to art than to
science and technology. It is "contemptuous or defiant in the
face of…the enemies of art and culture - the corrupt and philistine
public, the barbarian mob, the police, the military jackboot,"
[5; 198] and of course, industrialists and the stultifying and
nature-demolishing rhythm of the daily grind.

Sorel’s View of Science is
Helpful

Nevertheless,
the anti-science arguments some people express amount to an interesting
critique of science: a mirror scientists themselves should scrutinise.
The pungent views of the French sociologist, Georg Sorel, are especially
interesting, as I believe many CAM sympathisers would broadly agree with
Sorel’s corrosive view of science, as also would the neo-Romantics of
the last 40 years. Sorel dismissed science as "a system of
idealised entities: atoms, electric charges, mass, energy and the like–fictions
compounded out of observed uniformities…deliberately adapted to
mathematical treatment that enable men to identify some of the furniture
of the universe, and to predict and…control parts of it." [4;
301] He regarded science more as "an achievement of the creative
imagination, not an accurate reproduction of the structure of reality,
not a map, still less a picture, of what there was. Outside of this set
of formulas, of imaginary entities and mathematical relationships in
terms of which the system was constructed, there was ‘natural’
nature–the real thing…" [4; 302] He regarded such a view as
"an odious insult to human dignity, a mockery of the proper ends
of men," [4; 300] and ultimately constructed by "fanatical
pedants," [4; 303] out of "abstractions into which men
escape to avoid facing the chaos of reality." [4; 302]

As far as Sorel was concerned, "nature is not
a perfect machine, nor an exquisite organism, nor a rational system."
[4; 302] He rejected the view that "the methods of natural
science can explain and explain away ideas and values…or explain human
conduct in mechanistic or biological terms, as the…blinkered adherents
of la petite science believe." [4; 310] He also maintained that
the categories we impose upon the world, "alter what we call
reality…they do not establish timeless truths as the positivists
maintained," [4; 302] and to "confuse our own
constructions with eternal laws or divine decrees is one of the most
fatal delusions of men." [4; 303] It is "ideological
patter…bureaucracy, la petite science…the Tree of Knowledge has
killed the Tree of Life…human life [has been reduced] to rules that
seem to be based on objective truths." [4; 303] Such to Sorel,
is the appalling arrogance of science, a vast deceit of the imagination,
a view that conspires to "stifle the sense of common humanity
and destroy human dignity." [4; 304]

Science, he maintained, "is not a ‘mill’
into which you can drop any problem facing you, and which yields
solutions," [4; 311] that are automatically true and authentic.
Yet, this is precisely how too many people seem to regard it. To Sorel,
that is way "too much of a conceptual, ideological
construction," [4; 312] smothering our perception of truth
through the "stifling oppression of remorselessly tidy rational
organisation." [4; 321] For Sorel, the inevitable "consequence
of the modern scientific movement and the application of scientific
categories and methods to the behaviour of men," [4; 323] is an
outburst of interest in irrational forces, religions, social unrest,
criminality and deviance - resulting directly from an overzealous and
monistic obsession with scientific rationalism. And what science
confers, "a moral grandeur, bureaucratic organisation of human
lives in the light of…la petite science, positivist application of
quasi-scientific rules to society–all this Sorel despised and hated,"
[4; 328] as so much self-delusion and nonsense that generates no good
and nothing of lasting value. In essence, something of a Romantic like
Blake, Sorel would say, "the artist creates as the bird sings on
the bough, as the lily bursts into flower, to all appearance for no
ulterior purpose." [5; 196]

This is not to say that all CAM supporters believe
this, but some certainly do and many are broadly sympathetic to it.